I always say this about the NHL's officiating. It sucks all around. They don't try to screw specific teams, they screw everybody accidentally because they aren't any better. I still feel awful for Isles fans today. I don't care what their record shows, they should have had both points from yesterday.

It was a bad call, but it's not like we haven't had our share go against us. Granted, this one was at a more critical point, but still.

We got lucky. Simple as that. Anyone who says that was a kicking motion is a homer. Of course, we were also unlucky as well; 3 posts or whatever it was. It could have easily been 5-2 Blues at the end of regulation and the OT fiasco wouldn't have even transpired. Whatever. The encouraging thing to me about this game is that there were some flashes I saw of the pre-slump Blues in there; moving the puck better, getting more shots on net, etc. Sometimes it's a game of bounces, and this was definitely one of them. We had some go against us, and one big one go for us.

Hopefully they can get some more consistency back because that's the part that's lagging right now. They'll follow up a great play with something stupid.

Anyway, 2 points is 2 points. You take them any way you can. These ones were definitely in gift form though.

It was a kicking motion, anyone that says it wasn't doesn't have EYES. That puck didn't have the momentum to deflect of the skate in that direction, its simple physics and gee-ometry. But I'm a retard that says (Frank) a lot.. so what would I know?

On the ice, no much momentum is needed for things to move. Also, that seemed more like a Steen own goal to me. Vanek's skate is jammed by Steens as he tries to muscle the Austrian away from the crease.

So, SS is a homer. Shocker.

Last edited by ComradeT on Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

It was a bad call, but it's not like we haven't had our share go against us. Granted, this one was at a more critical point, but still.

We got lucky. Simple as that. Anyone who says that was a kicking motion is a homer. Of course, we were also unlucky as well; 3 posts or whatever it was. It could have easily been 5-2 Blues at the end of regulation and the OT fiasco wouldn't have even transpired. Whatever. The encouraging thing to me about this game is that there were some flashes I saw of the pre-slump Blues in there; moving the puck better, getting more shots on net, etc. Sometimes it's a game of bounces, and this was definitely one of them. We had some go against us, and one big one go for us.

Hopefully they can get some more consistency back because that's the part that's lagging right now. They'll follow up a great play with something stupid.

Anyway, 2 points is 2 points. You take them any way you can. These ones were definitely in gift form though.

It was a kicking motion, anyone that says it wasn't doesn't have EYES. That puck didn't have the momentum to deflect of the skate in that direction, its simple physics and gee-ometry. But I'm a retard that says (Frank) a lot.. so what would I know?

On the ice, no much momentum is needed for things to move. Also, that seemed more like a Steen own goal to me. Vanek's skate is jammed by Steens as he tries to muscle the Czech away from the crease.

If anything it was Steen's foot slamming into Vanek's that caused any perceived forward momentum. Even with that it was so minimal that it's hard for me to see any clear intent on Vanek's part to kick it in. Typically these situations favor the scoring team because it has to be completely conclusive to be overturned. I know it went to Toronto and I'm sure a lot of eyes looked at this and made the call, but it doesn't seem right to me. There's so much gray area with this play that, I don't know how they were able to conclude without any doubt that it was intentionally kicked. I guess I'm not a real Blues fan....

_________________2014-2015 Official LGB Sponsor of T.J. Oshie2013-2014 Official LGB Sponsor of Kevin Shattenkirk2012-2013 Official LGB Sponsor of Ryan Reaves2011-2012 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko2010-2011 Official LGB Sponsor of Vladimir Tarasenko

Not sure if "League Bias" in this case means the League is biased toward the Blues, or against the Islanders... I'm betting Vanek means the latter.

This issue really comes down to the "conclusive evidence" requirement to overturn a call on the ice. In this case, I don't think the video provides conclusive evidence of a distinct kicking motion. I think if the call on the ice had been no-goal, it would have stood, because the video was inconclusive. But since the on-ice call was good goal, I'm shocked they reversed the call based on this video evidence.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum